See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/27398589

Wheelchair Velocity of Tennis Players during Propulsion

with and Without the Use of Racquets

Article in Adapted physical activity quarterly: APAQ · July 2005

DOI: 10.1123/apaq.22.3.291 · Source: OAI

CITATIONS READS

75 1,224

2 authors:

Victoria L. Goosey-Tolfrey Andrew D. Moss

Loughborough University Liverpool John Moores University
242 PUBLICATIONS 6,750 CITATIONS 20 PUBLICATIONS 314 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Andrew D. Moss on 27 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

ADAPTED PHYSICAL ACTIVITY QUARTERLY, 2005, 22, 291-301
© 2005 Human Kinetics, Inc.

Wheelchair Velocity of Tennis Players

During Propulsion
With and Without the Use of Racquets
Victoria L. Goosey-Tolfrey and Andrew D. Moss
Manchester Metropolitan University, UK

To compare the velocity characteristics of wheelchair propulsion with and

without the use of a tennis racquet, eight male wheelchair tennis players
performed a series of 20m sprints from a stationary start. The maximum
velocities reached on average 4.39 ± 0.74 m/s; however, they were reduced
by 0.18 ± 0.06 m/s during the racquet condition. Furthermore, when wheeling
under the racquet condition, the velocities achieved during the first three pushes
were significantly reduced. The reduction in maximum velocity and relative
velocity contributions while holding a tennis racquet may have been due to an
ineffective push technique resulting in low effectiveness of force application.
The relation of these parameters and trunk stability is discussed.

The movement dynamics of wheelchair tennis are specifically related to

propelling the wheelchair while holding a tennis racquet. The specific movements
of the tennis wheelchair-user interface are similar to basketball and rugby and
include starting, sprinting, braking, and turning (pivoting). As with these popular
multiple sprint based wheelchair sports, the wheelchair tennis player’s ability to
accelerate quickly from a standstill is considered more important than sprinting
(Vanlandewijck, Theisen, & Daly, 2001).
Wheelchair sport propulsion strategies are complex (Goosey-Tolfrey &
Kirk, 2003). Wheelchair acceleration and sprinting ability not only depends upon
the wheelchair and user, but more importantly, the wheelchair-user interface
(Vanlandewijck et al., 2001; Woude, Veeger, & Rozendal, 1989). For basketball
chair configurations, maximum velocities of up to 4.75 m/s and 4.08 m/s for male
and female basketball players, respectively, have been reported (Coutts, 1994;
Vanlandewijck, Daly, & Spaepen, 1999). One would expect these maximum veloci-
ties (MV) to be achievable by the tennis player as tennis wheelchairs typically have
similar wheel dimensions and camber angles to that of a basketball wheelchair.
However, the tennis racquet is an additional constraint to the wheelchair-user inter-
face during propulsion in wheelchair tennis. Not only does this have the potential
to affect MV, but more importantly, it may affect the participant’s ability to achieve
a high percentage of MV over the initial pushes. It is therefore assumed that the

The authors are with the Institute of Biophysical and Clinical Research into Human Movement,
Department of Exercise & Sport Science, MMU Cheshire, Hassall Road, Alsager, Stoke-on-Trent, UK,
ST7 2HL. E-mail: [email protected].
291
292 Goosey-Tolfrey and Moss

most effective propulsion strategy would result in obtaining MV in the least amount
of pushes possible.
The linear wheelchair and push rim velocities from a standing start have only
been studied in wheelchair basketball players (Coutts, 1990, 1994). During a sprint
test on a wheelchair ergometer, three male wheelchair basketball players achieved an
average MV of 4.02 m/s. Data demonstrated that 61% of MV was achieved during
the first push increasing to 80% of MV during the third push (Coutts, 1990). It is
important to note that this study used a stationary wheelchair ergometer, which
would have failed to address the contribution to the forward momentum of the
wheelchair brought about by the movement of the trunk and upper body (Moss,
Fowler, & Goosey-Tolfrey, 2005). Vanlandewijck et al. (2001) state that wheelchair
propulsion should be studied under realistic conditions. Recent advancements using
telemetry based velocometers now enable us to measure wheelchair velocity under
realistic field conditions (Moss, Fowler, & Tolfrey, (2003).
Using a velocometer, the velocity characteristics of a sample of wheelchair
tennis players during wheelchair propulsion over 20m from a stationary start were
collected. The purpose of the study was to describe wheelchair velocity during the
first 3 pushes and the MV with and without the use of a tennis racquet. Furthermore,
the relationship between trunk stability and (a) the MV achieved with the racquet and
(b) the relative percentage of first push optimum was examined. It was hypothesized
that without the tennis racquet, it would be easier to maintain a proper hand-grip
and hence accelerate the wheelchair quicker from a standstill as well as obtain a
higher MV. It was further hypothesized that players with a greater degree of trunk
stability would obtain a better velocity profile.

Methods

Participants
Eight highly trained male wheelchair tennis players (34 ± 7 yrs.) volunteered to
participate in the study. All participants gave written informed consent prior to any
involvement in the study. Approval for the study procedures was obtained from
the University Research Ethics Committee. All the participants were considered
as highly trained, having competed regularly on the international tennis circuit and
being part of the National Great Britain squad in preparation for their selection for
the 2004 Paralympic Games. The disability and participant descriptive demograph-
ics are presented in Table 1. Participants used their own tennis wheelchairs, which
varied in manufacturer and design (ranges: wheel camber angles 18-20°, wheel
size 25-26 inches, and push-rim diameters 24-25 inches). Within wheelchair tennis,
only two classifications exist (quadriplegics and open). Therefore from a combina-
tion of medical records, chartered physiotherapy records, physiological test data,
observation of tennis play, and physical examination from the Great Britain Head
Physiotherapist players were ranked according to trunk stability. The participants’
final ranking (1 to 8; the higher the rank the greater the ability) agreed to the
corresponding classification system used within wheelchair rugby (International
Wheelchair Rugby Federation) and wheelchair basketball (International Wheelchair
Basketball Federation). These classification systems used focus on (a) the nature and
severity of the athlete’s disability and (b) the athlete’s functional ability to perform
skills associated with the sport. Athletes are assigned points (classification) based on
Velocity Characteristics of Wheelchair Tennis Players 293

Table 1 Participant International Wheelchair Tennis Federation (IWTF) Ranking,

Disability Details, and Wheelchair Tennis Playing Experience at National Level

Tennis Playing
Trunk Experience
Participant IWTF Rank Disability Stability (years)

1 Top 30 SCI, T6 Complete 5 10

2 Top 40 SCI, C6/C7 Complete 1 10
3 Top 30 SCI, T3 Incomplete 4 15
4 Top 25 SCI, C7/C8 Incomplete 2 14
5 Top 50 SCI, T10 Incomplete 6 6
6 Top 25 SCI, C7 Incomplete 3 9
7 Top 130 Brittle Bones 7 7
8 Top 40 AMP, right leg above knee 8 7

Key. SCI = spinal cord injury and AMP = amputee. Trunk stability was established from
medical and physiotherapy records.

their ability to perform tasks or skills associated with the game of rugby/basketball.
The more points an athlete accumulates, the greater his/her ability.

Data Collection
Immediately prior to testing, a velocometer, developed at the Manchester
Metropolitan University to measure changes in racing wheelchair velocity with
respect to each push (Moss et al., 2003), was fitted to each participant’s wheelchair
and then calibrated. After each participant completed his normal warm-up, he
completed twelve maximal sprints as described. The sprints were performed from
a stationary start, along a 20m section of an indoor tennis court marked from the
baseline. The starting commands “three, two, one, go” were employed to initiate
each trial. Trials were randomized between the conditions, “with racquet (R)” and
“no racquet (NR).” When performing R trials, participants held their own tennis
racquet in the usual manner, in their playing hand. Participants were allowed a full
recovery between trials in order to minimize the effect of fatigue. This period was
at least three minutes. During each trial, data from the velocometer were recorded
using a laptop personal computer.

Data Analysis
The velocometer data were exported to a spreadsheet (Microsoft Excel XP). For
each participant, the highest wheelchair velocity, reached from each condition, R
(n = 6) and NR (n = 6), was defined as maximum velocity (MV). Correspondingly,
294 Goosey-Tolfrey and Moss

for the analysis of the first three pushes, the average of the six trials was used for
each participant. The MV achieved during the NR condition was considered to be
the optimum MV since there was no constraint during wheelchair propulsion. The
following mean values were derived: maximum velocities, peak velocities of pushes
1 to 3, the relative wheelchair velocity (%), which was defined as the ratio between
peak velocity and MV for the first 3 pushes. Similarly the wheelchair velocity (%)
relative to the MV obtained from the NR condition was calculated for these three
pushes. The time to MV, total number of pushes over the 20m, and the distance
the participant traveled were also calculated.
The Statistics Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS, Chicago, IL) was used
for all statistical analyses. Separate condition by push (2  3) within measures
ANOVA were used to analyze the effect of the independent variables on wheel-
chair velocity, distance traveled and relative percent of MV. Pairwise Bonferroni
post-hoc tests were used to explore significant main effects across the three levels
of push, whereas simple effect analyses were used to further analyze significant
interactions. A paired student’s t-test was applied to assess the significance of dif-
ferences in the MV, time to MV, and total number of pushes between the R and
NR conditions. A two tailed  < 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant.
Effect sizes were calculated and corrected for small samples according to Hedges
(1981) to determine the meaningfulness of the differences. An effect size > .80
reflects a large/meaningful difference, and an effect size > .50 reflects a moderate
difference. The relationship between trunk stability and the maximum velocity
achieved with the racquet as well as trunk stability and the relative percentage of
first push optimum was examined using a Spearman Correlation.

Results
Figure 1 shows the velocity profile of the first 10 pushes from two selected trials (R
and NR) for one wheelchair tennis player. An advantage can be observed for the NR
condition, shown by greater acceleration during the first push and a higher velocity
reached by the tenth push. During the NR trial, the player was also able to perform
the ten pushes in a shorter time period than in the trial under the R condition.
From a group perspective, a significant main effect for condition (F(1,7) = 22.9,
p = 0.002; ES = 0.22) revealed that the peak velocities were lower in the racquet
trials compared to the NR condition (2.08 vs. 2.28 m/s, respectively). A main
effect for push (F(1.2,8.3) = 435, p < 0.001; ES = 0.30) revealed that as expected, peak
velocity increased across pushes. A nonsignificant condition by push interaction
(F(2,14) = 2.2, p = 0.15) showed that in both conditions velocity increased by the
same extent across the three pushes. This nonsignificant interaction was also found
for the relative percent of MV. Figure 2 illustrates that wheelchair propulsion with
the racquet significantly reduced MV by 0.18 ± 0.06 m/s (4.22 vs. 4.39 m/s; p <
0.01). In fact, even by the third push, peak velocity was significantly restricted when
holding a tennis racquet (2.48 vs. 2.73 m/s; p < 0.01). Despite these significances,
the difference between the two conditions is only marginal, which was reflected
by a low effect size.
In relative terms, when holding a racquet, the players achieved 39.5 ± 15.5%
of their MV during the first push increasing to 60.8 ± 14.3% after the third push
(Table 2; significant main effect for push: F(1.1,7.6) = 169, p < 0.001; ES = 0.22).
In comparison, 63.8 ±11.3% of MV during the third push was attained under the
Velocity Characteristics of Wheelchair Tennis Players 295

Figure 1 — Wheelchair velocity versus time plot of propulsion with and without a
tennis racquet (solid line indicates the R condition). Example taken from participant
number 5.

Figure 2 — A comparison between the wheelchair velocities of the first three pushes
and peak velocity with (R) and without (NR) the tennis racquet. The NR condition
resulted in significantly higher velocities than the R condition (p < 0.01). Effect sizes
range from 0.17 to 0.30.

NR condition. However, if one considers the R condition as a percentage of the

optimum velocity achievable (without a racquet; NR), then the attainable velocity
after three pushes was significantly lower (p < 0.01) and was found to be only
58.5% compared to 63.8% (p < 0.01). Interestingly, despite no difference in the
time to MV, the number of pushes taken to cover 20m when holding a racquet was
significantly higher than under the NR condition (13.8 ± 2.1 vs. 14.3 ± 2.5; p <
0.01; Table 3). The mean distance covered (Table 3) shows that players were able
to travel further in the trials under the NR condition than in the trials under the R
296 Goosey-Tolfrey and Moss

Table 2 Relative Velocity Contributions Across the First Three Pushes as a

Percentage of the Maximum Velocity Achieved During the NR and R Conditions

Condition/ NO RACQUET (NR) RACQUET (R) RACQUET (Ropt.)

Group % of Maximum % of Maximum % of Maximum
velocity of condition velocity of condition velocity (Optimum)

Push Push Push

1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3
Male
(n = 8) Mean 41.1 54.0 63.8 39.5 52.0 60.8b 37.8a 50.0a 58.5a
SD 14.1 13.1 11.3 15.5 14.0 14.3 14.3 12.5 12.6

Note. Ropt. is calculated as the ratio between wheelchair velocity achieved under the R
condition divided by the maximum velocity achieved under the NR condition. a p < 0.01
between corresponding push of NO RACQUET condition, b P = 0.07 between corresponding
push of NO RACQUET condition. Effect sizes range from 0.06 to 0.22.

Table 3 Distance Covered, Total Number of Pushes to Cover 20m, and Time to
Peak Velocity Over 20m Under the NR and R Conditions

Condition/ NO RACQUET RACQUET

Group
Push Push
1 2 3 1 2 3

Distance Mean 0.58 1.41 2.50 0.51 1.33 2.34

covered (m)
SD 0.05 0.20 0.30 0.08 0.11 0.11
Total number Mean 13.8 14.3a
of pushes to
cover 20 m
SD 2.1 2.5

Time to Mean 11.5 11.4

maximum
velocity (s)
SD 1.9 2.0

Note. a p < 0.01 between NO RACQUET condition. Effect size of 0.20

Velocity Characteristics of Wheelchair Tennis Players 297

condition (significant main effect for condition and push; p < 0.01). This is hardly
surprising given the increased velocity the athletes attained during the trials under
the NR condition.
The relationship between MV and relative velocity contributions during the
R condition in relation to trunk stability are shown in Figures 3a and 3b. There
was a significant correlation in relation to trunk stability for both these variables,
MV (0.84; p < 0.01), and the relative velocity attained after the first push (0.93;
p < 0.01).

Figure 3a — Relative first push velocity to optimum velocity in relation to trunk

stability.

Figure 3b — Maximum velocity achieved during the R condition in relation to trunk

stability.
298 Goosey-Tolfrey and Moss

Discussion
According to our knowledge, this study is the first to provide an insight into the
velocity profiles of wheelchair tennis players. The mean MV value without a
racquet (4.39 ± 0.68 m/s) falls midway within previous literature (Coutts, 1990;
Vanlandewijck et al., 1999). In part, differences in MV between studies may be
masked by measurement techniques and testing surface employed. However,
the key difference is that Coutts’ (1990) data were presented over a decade ago.
Therefore, it seems logical to assume that technical advances in wheelchair design
and improvements in mechanical efficiency, in conjunction with improved training
regimes, can be largely responsible for these improvements in the recent MV values
(Vanlandewijck et al., 2001); however, it is important to explain why wheelchair
basketball players employed in Coutts’ (1990) study were more effective with
accelerating their chairs. In relative terms, the basketball players reached 80% of
their MV during the third push, when wheeling under similar conditions (NR),
our tennis players were only able to achieve 63.8 ±11.3%. Notably, the basketball
players clearly had a greater peak velocity after the first push.
Interestingly, the wheelchair velocity reported by Coutts (1990) showed that
the basketball players’ velocity plateaud after 3s. In contrast, our data mirrored
the profile obtained from the wheelchair distance racers whom Coutts (1990) also
studied. For both the tennis players and racers, the velocity profiles were found to
gradually increase over the duration of the tests. It was evident that the tennis players
utilized the period following the third push to increase their velocity, compensating
for a lack of acceleration. Data of this kind are important for the coach to know,
particularly for this group of wheelchair tennis players, who focus on increasing
their ability to improve the first three pushes, rather than increasing sprinting ability
(Vanlandewijck et al., 2001).
While a comparison between Coutts’ (1990) data is possible, it is important
to note that all participants were from the IWBF Class 3 sporting category (IWBF
Points 3.0 and 3.5); however, our study contained a fairly heterogeneous sample
with respect to disability and where relevant, with completeness of the SCI.
Wheelchair tennis involves only two playing categories (quadriplegic and open).
Hence, within the open division, one may find a SCI player (SCI level T3) compet-
ing against an amputee. In the present study, three players were quadriplegics. This
may explain why lower peak velocities were reported for the tennis players during
the initial pushes. It is well documented that for these participants, performance
is hampered not only through disruption to the autonomic nervous system, but
also due to reduced functional muscle mass in the trunk and upper limbs (Woude,
Baker, Elkhuizen, Veeger, & Gwinn, 1998). Evidence from anaerobic wheelchair
ergometry tests has shown that variations in disability, and hence the degree of trunk
stability, influence power output (Bhambhani, 2002; Janssen, Dallmeijer, Veeger,
& Woude, 2002) and velocity (Doyle et al., 2004) that is achievable. Supportive of
these statements is that a significant relationship was found between trunk stability
and relative velocity (first push) and MV during the R condition. As trunk stability
plays an important role in developing anaerobic power, the relationship between
lesion level and the velocity profile across a larger sample group of players war-
rants further investigation.
When wheeling under the R condition, the MV and peak velocities achieved
during the first three pushes were significantly reduced. Even with tennis playing
Velocity Characteristics of Wheelchair Tennis Players 299

experiences of > 6 yrs., wheelchair propulsion with a racquet is always likely to be

slower than with NR because of the influence of the racquet weight during propul-
sion and recovery phases. Not only does the racquet handgrip play an important role
in the control of the placement of the shot (Davey, Thorpe, & Williams, 2002), but
holding a racquet while propelling a wheelchair interferes with the hand contact on
the rim. Tennis players may have to rely on a high coefficient of friction between
their racquet and the hand-rim, due to loss of effective grip (Gehlsen, Davis, &
Bahamonde, 1990). These problems relating to coupling the hand to the rim with
the racquet in the hand may be best understood through the study of force applica-
tion strategies. Indeed, Linden, Valent, Veeger, and Woude (1996) examined the
effects of hand-rim tube diameter on propulsion efficiency and force application
and found that propulsion with a larger hand-rim resulted in an improved mechani-
cal efficiency. Several studies have investigated the size, shape, and material of
the hand-rim during standard manual wheelchair propulsion (Linden et al., 1996).
Moreover, the size of the hand relative to the size of object (e.g., the tennis racquet)
has been linked to grip strength (Fransson & Winkel, 1991). For wheelchair tennis
players, the tennis racquet is a very specific constraint, thus it must be selected
with care. The findings of the aforementioned studies need to be addressed during
wheelchair sport propulsion.
Interestingly, during the R condition, it was evident that MV was achieved
within a similar time to that of the NR condition (about 11s). It appears that this was
made possible by athletes adopting a technique whereby a faster push frequency
was employed. This adaptation in wheelchair sprinting technique of faster and
shorter pushes follows coaching advice for wheelchair sprinting by Walsh (1987).
An awareness of the effects of push frequency and sprinting ability upon wheeling
performance on a tennis court needs to be adopted within training drills prescribed
by our United Kingdom tennis coaches. There may not be a large difference in the
velocity profiles between the two conditions, but from a practical perspective, cover-
ing .16m less distance after the third push may have a consequence on whether or
not the ball is returned, or if it is returned, whether or not the optimum technique is
permitted, allowing the player to achieve the correct racquet head angle to contact
the ball (Davey et al., 2002).
Analysis of the velocity profiles across the three pushes with a without the
racquet revealed the following. Wheeling with a racquet resulted in players achiev-
ing 39.5 ± 15.5% of their MV during the first push and 60.8 ± 14.3% by their third
push. In comparison, 63.8 ± 11.3% of MV was achieved by the third push for the
NR condition; however, if one were to consider that the MV from all 12 sprints was
achieved during the NR condition, then the peak velocities relative to the optimum
MV resulted in players only achieving 58.5% of optimum MV after the first push.
This discrepancy may have been due to an ineffective push strategy resulting in
low effective force application (Veeger, Lute, Roeleveld, & Woude, 1992), by
applying the hand to the rim as described earlier. Some players experiencing a
greater reduction in velocities while pushing with the racquet suggests to coaches
that they should incorporate drills with the racquet at all times. This should enable
players to enhance wheelchair propulsion with the racquet. Future studies could
be designed to examine adaptations in kinetics and kinematics during wheelchair
propulsion with a tennis racquet.
The results of this study have several important practical implications. Holding
a racquet while propelling a wheelchair interferes with the contact of the hand on the
300 Goosey-Tolfrey and Moss

hand-rim. This was evident when MV and peak velocities achieved during the first
three pushes are restricted due to the presence of a racquet (p < 0.01). Moreover,
by the 3rd push, .16m less distance was covered, which may have a consequence
of whether or not the ball is returned with an optimal technique. Further work is
essential to gain a clearer understanding in order to assist coaches with training
ideas designed to improve wheelchair tennis propulsion. Despite the small sample
size of elite wheelchair tennis players, relationships between trunk stability and
wheelchair velocity characteristics have been found. This may open debate around
the fact that currently only two competitive divisions (IWTF) for wheelchair tennis
players exist. Future studies profiling the physiological and biomechanical aspects
across a range of wheelchair tennis participants are warranted.

References
Bhambhani, Y. (2002). Physiology of wheelchair racing in athletes with spinal cord injury.
Sports Medicine, 32, 23-51.
Coutts K.D. (1990). Kinematics of sport wheelchair propulsion. Journal of Rehabilitation
Research and Development, 27, 21-26.
Coutts K.D. (1994). Drag and sprint performance of wheelchair basketball players. Journal
of Rehabilitation Research and Development, 27, 138-143.
Davey, P.R., Thorpe, R.D., & Williams, C. (2002). Fatigue decreases skill tennis performance.
Journal of Sport Sciences, 20, 311-318.
Doyle, T.L.A, Davis, R.W., Humphries, B., Dugan, E.L., Horn, B.G., Shim, J.K., & Newton.,
R.U. (2004). Further evidence to change the medical classification system of The
National Wheelchair Basketball Association. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly,
21, 63-70.
Fransson, C., & Winkel, J. (1991). Hand strength, the effect of grip span and grip size.
Ergonomics, 34, 881-892.
Gehlsen, G.M., Davis, R.W., & Bahamonde, R. (1990). Intermittent velocity and wheelchair
performance characteristics. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 7, 219-230.
Goosey-Tolfrey, V.L., & Kirk J.H. (2003). Effect of push frequency and strategy variations
on economy and perceived exertion during wheelchair propulsion. European Journal
of Applied Physiology, 90, 154-158.
Hedges, L.V. (1981). Distribution theory for Glass’s estimator of effect size and related
estimates. Journal of Educational Statistics, 6, 107-128.
Janssen, T.W.J., Dallmeijer, A.J., Veeger, H.E.J., & Woude, L.H.V. (2002). Normative values
and determinants of physical capacity in individuals with spinal cord injury. Journal
of Rehabilitation Research and Development, 39, 29-39.
Linden, M.L., Valent, L., Veeger, H.E.J. & Woude, L.H.V. (1996). The effect of wheelchair
handrim tube diameter on propulsion efficiency and force application. IEEE
Transactions on Rehabilitation Engineering, 4, 123-132.
Moss, A.D., Fowler, N.E., & Goosey-Tolfrey, V.L. (2005). The intra-push velocity profile of
over-ground racing wheelchair sprint start. Journal of Biomechanics, 38, 15-22.
Moss A.D., Fowler, N.E., & Tolfrey, V.L. (2003). A telemetry-based velocometer to measure
wheelchair velocity. Journal of Biomechanics, 36, 253-257.
Vanlandewijck., Y.C., Daly, D.J., & Spaepen, A.J. (1999). Biomechanics in handrim
wheelchair propulsion: Wheelchair-user interface adjustment for basketball. Education
Physical Training Sport, 4(33), 50-53.
 Velocity Characteristics of Wheelchair Tennis Players 301

Vanlandewijck, Y.C., Theisen, D., & Daly, D. (2001). Wheelchair propulsion biomechanics:
Implications for wheelchair sports. Sports Medicine, 31, 339-367.
Veeger, H.E.J., Lute, E.M.C., Roeleveld, K. & Woude, L.H.V. (1992). Differences in
performance between trained and untrained subjects during a 30-s sprint test in a
wheelchair ergometer. Journal of Applied Physiology, 64, 158-164.
Woude, L.H.V., Baker, W.H., Elkhuizen, J.W., Veeger, H.E.J., & Gwinn, T. (1998). Propulsion
technique and anaerobic work capacity in elite wheelchair athletes: Cross-sectional
analysis. American Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, 77, 222-234.
Woude, L.H.V., Veeger, H.E.J, & Rozendal, R.H. (1989). Ergonomics of wheelchair design:
A prerequisite for optimum wheeling conditions. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly,
6, 109-132.
Walsh, C.M. (1987). The effect of pushing frequency on speed in wheelchair sprinting.
Sports n Spokes, 13(1), 13-14.

Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the Wheelchair Lawn Tennis Association and for the
assistance of Nik Diaper during data collection.

Author Note
Specific technical details of the tennis wheelchairs used can be obtained via request
to the author.

View publication stats